Which Bible and what version to use is the best and most accurate? Thanks.?

Question

Currently i am using NIV. Does NIV have the gap theory problem? Thanks again.

Answer 1

For an analysis of the various translations of the bible see:
http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html

For accurate translations of the bible at the literal level I recommend you use the NASB or ESV translations.

If you run across what you think is a biblical contradiction, please study the site’s content below for a comprehensive list of so-called biblical contradictions.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX

Answer 2

Old Testament:
In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:
"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

New Testament:

While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible:

King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.

The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:

John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1

Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University

Answer 3

I think the ONLY Bible that is best and accurate belong to the category of the Autographs. But the fact is that we don't have them. So we are left with extant copies of the manuscripts in their original languages and the various English translations of them. As for these English translations, none can be said to be the best and most accurate in every aspect. The Bible is a huge book and various translations translate certain passages better and more accurately than the others with regards to choice of words used. But all (with some exceptions) can be said to be very reliable and accurate in their translations. Thus it is recommended that the student of the Word reads from a variety of translations spanning the spectrum from literal to functional translation approaches.

Personally I enjoy the NLT and use it as a primary text but I read others as well.

Answer 4

Who can say?

If you go back about 200 years, you'll find that the Protestant Bibles began to leave some things out. The Bible that your great-great grandparents used is not the same one you use today; it is missing the apocrypha; the Catholics still have that section.

Too, the Bible of the Catholics does not contain some of the books in the Canon of the Egyptian (or is it Ethiopian?) Orthodox Church.

As for "accurate", on needs to define what is meant by that as well. When translating languages, one can go about it in a number of ways. There are the word-for-word or thought-for-thought methods. Some methods strive to retain poetic verse in a poetic fashion.

An interesting example comes about with the "needle's eye". Everyone knows that a camel can't pass through the eye of a needle, and might then suspect that it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. However, the needle's eye was not literal, but a gate called "The needle's eye", which was designed such that a camel would not pass through it unless led. A more accurate translation to our minds would have been a low gate, as we do not universally understand the concept of "eye of a needle" in the same way as those who were living there at the time would have.

Too, when looking at ancient scriptue, one needs to understand that there was no punctuation then; consequently, dividing words into sentences can be difficult. Take, for example the following sentence: "Truly I say unto thee this day thou shalt be with me in paradise" With no comma, what does this mean? If one places a comma after "thee", that means that the man shall be in heaven "this day". If one places a comma after "day", that means that Christ is speaking "this day", telling the man that he shall get to heaven, but does not indicate when.

To place your trust in a Bible is to place your trust in translators. Which is most accurate is impossible to discern. There is no way to know exactly what the original authors wished to say, because we have lost the context in which those words were written. No translator of an ancient language can translate large works with a complete freedom from ambiguity. Thousands of years have passed, and without the real and present cultural context, one must make assumptions.

While it is reasonable to discern general thoughts regarding life and spirituality, the nit-picy details may be much further away from their originally intended meanings.

Christians may claim that the Holy Spirit will guide the reader, but the Catholic Church makes the same claim regarding the Pope. Nowhere in the Bible does it claim that the reader will be inspired to discern the true meaning of the original text after it has been translated into a new language, thousands of years later, with the cultural context all but gone.

If you wish to find the best Bible for you, find the one that you shall read.

Just a note to those who say that "Only the King James version" is acceptable, this means that the only way to study the Bible is in English. The King James version is an English translation, and thus, available only to readers of English. I guess that only the English speakers are worthy of being saved?

Answer 5

There is only one word of God.
That word is preserved in the AKJV.
Here is a good verse that back up the false versions...
Revelation 22:18...For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Matt A..........gives an accurate description of some problems regarding false bible versions.
He deserves top answer for his comments.

Answer 6

seriously, none. if you have problems which bible to use then your religion has a problem for its followers. where is the ONE AND TRUE AUTHENTIC BOOK?? its not available. see the red letter bible. see how much of the words arent the original form of bible.

Answer 7

Personally I use the New King James version since I feel that the KJV is more accurate. (same reasons as the person who posted above) The difference is the New KJV is written in modern English.

Answer 8

From what I have read the New American Standard is best.
http://www.lockman.org/nasb/

Bible time line:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

Answer 9

The NEW WORLD TRANSLATION by Jehovah's Witnesses is the MOST ACCURATE bible Translation; and it ISN'T EVEN CLOSE ! ! !

Answer 10

I have been on this mission for some time, and it can get quite confusing and many have miss guided information on the topic. They read 1 web site and take it as truth or hear 1 pastor say something and take it as truth.

NIV, NKJV, NLT and almost anything that is new past the KJV is from the old Gnostic translations of the bible. These translations is also where Jesus and Jehovah as names were inserted. The catholic church did not like these translations as they had many errors in them and buried them in the chuches basement for hundreds of years.

But in the past 50 or so years, they have leaked out and started to spring up in vast numbers, each one slighly different than the others.

Now the current KJV we see is not accurate either, as in 1919 it was altered by Christians and Baptists due to a fight with the Jehovah Witnesses of that time. Many bash the JW's, but know this, to date, they are the best bible scholars out there besides the true Jews. I don't believe in their religion nor their ways, as they follow a man, not the book, but their experience in digging for the truth of each word, is out standing and deserves merit. But that does not mean their version is proper either.

If you can find a KJV printed prior to 1919, you will have the most accurate American version of the bible. It will not say GOD nor LORD in captials nor say Jesus. It will say YHWH or YHVH for GOD or LORD as this is Gods' true personal name, YHWH or Yahweh. It was removed, and this act alone is a direct blasphemy to God and he even states this act in the bible, " NEVER allow My Name to become nothingness, this is an abomination ". So the act of hiding the name alone was enough to remove someones tree of life, not to mention altering the bible is in direct violation of that tree again and metioned in mutiple passages " do not alter 1 word of this book ".

Now if you dig deeper, and want to get more accurate as to what the Jews and all read. Then you have to get more into the Scriptures and the Jerusalem Bible. I personally have the New Jerusalem Bible and like it as it has more items for contents and descriptions in the margins. This book also uses the proper name of YHWH and Yahushua the Messiah.

Now not to offend, but to educate. All the names of the bible books, all in original form, have " Yah " in them for Yahweh. Yahweh, YHWH, YHVH, Yahushua, Yahshua, etc all are defined as words such as God Saves, Salvation, Gods Child, Gods Gift, etc. Even when we break these words up into root forms, they still define as good, pleasant, Godly.

But now take the Gnostics translations, Jesus and Jehovah. Well J is improper for that time period so that makes Jesus become Esus or Iesus which defines down as " the son of Zeus ". Well Zeus was not a good character and long story short, he is part of the fallen ones, the Nephilim, the " men of old, the men of renown " as mentioned in Genesis. They are the reptile aliens we hear of today and also why people like Osiris, Isis's father, is painted green in ancient times, as he was green, as he was a fallen one.

Now Jehovah, since no J really, becomes Hovah, which easily defines in Strong's as " evil, trickery, hatred ". Since both of these names can easily be defined as evil items, yet all the other names of the most high are all broken down into pleasant items, basic logic tells us something is wrong.

Then if you go deeper some, and paint a larger picture, you start to see the deception that Lucifer is so great at.

People stand in a chruch and praise Jesus, the son of Zeus, so even though they " think " they are giving praise to the most high, they are not. And God says in the bible, " every word has meaning and Name ", so we cannot just shrug it off like most do. Along with this, they pray in this church while starring at a big cross of a white jesus nailed to it. Well most should realize Jesus or properly, Yahushua was not white, for even the book of Revelation gives us a description of Yahushua. Feet of bronze as if on fire, is not white. The white image most know as Jesus, is actually a fallen angel. I can't recall the name off hand, but its like Sandreen or Santanen. He was painted by a worshiper of Satan and for some reasons the masses accepted it as a picture of Jesus. But if you look back in history, its clear that the original images were of a some what colored man, not white.

And while in this church, giving praise to the Son of Zeus, starring at a fake white Jesus, worshinging in front of a graven image (cross is fine, but not to pray in front of), and to finish it all off... you say " amen " to end it. This is giving praise to Amen-Rah, the sun god, or also known as Horus, another fallen one. Cause the proper term to say is " amein ", just removing an " i " altered the words meanings and where the praise goes to.

All these alterations that I speak off, happened due to the Gnostics and their translations. If you want a true bible, then prior to 1919 KJV or Jerusalem Bible. But even these I am not 100% satisfied on and my research still continues to this day. I have multiple bibles and I am sure I will buy more.

For I have 1 mission, and its a mission YHWH gave to me, define His true word, no matter where it leads me. And that mission I will continue to walk till I find the answer. For as He says " one must cast down all one knows, to build a foundation of truth ". I am doing just that.